23 - 25 JUNE 1999
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Literature & Theory, China & Japan
Last June fourteen scholars of Chinese and Japanese literature came together in London for a workshop to discuss the uses (and possible misuses) of literary theory in the study of East Asian literature. The workshop, organized by Michel Hockx of SOAS and Ivo Smits of Leiden University, was the first joint venture of the School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of London University and the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in Leiden.
By MICHEL HOCKX AND IVO SMITS
Various new theories have emerged during the past two decades, uprooting traditional forms of understanding literary texts, their function, their readership, and their interpretation. It has often been argued that the majority of these theories are but of limited use to the study of non-Western literatures, as they are based on Western norms and views of literature. Even those theories which attempt to criticize or eradicate Western biases have themselves often been formulated by Western scholars or in Western academic contexts. Nevertheless, scholars throughout the world have been using and discussing these theories. They often do so within the confines of a specific country or 'area'. This workshop was set up to provide an opportunity for scholars of two closely related, yet often independently studied cultures, China and Japan, to compare their views of specific theories of literature, to discuss the advantages and shortcomings of those theories, and to consider specific difficulties related to the East-West dimension. In view of the growing awareness that a substantial body of contemporary criticism was developed on the basis of Western texts, attention also was paid to East Asian literary concepts and the question of how these may contribute to our thinking about literary theory.Speakers were asked to focus specifically on their understanding and application of theories and to illustrate this with examples from their research. In their preparation, speakers had been asked to consider such questions as: How does a particular theory understand the concept of 'literature'? For which literatures, literary styles, or literary genres was the theory originally formulated? Which elements or components of the theory can be considered the most useful, and which the most useless, for the study of your subject? In what way does your work contribute to the further development of the theory? How do (traditional) East Asian concepts of literature influence your views of literary theory?
However, if the organizers had started out with the idea of 'sampling' the workings of different, criticism-based approaches to East Asian literatures, then the participants were quick to point out that the whole notion of 'theory' is Eurocentric and modernist in origin and as a source of ideas it is often difficult to apply to East Asian texts just like that. It is good to remember that Europe is just as tradition-specific as East Asia. In fact, some of the presentations showed how sometimes case studies of such theoretical applications can become studies in cultural behaviour, admirably demonstrated in the contribution on Julia Kristeva's Des chinoises. In short, the workshop, born partly out of a pragmatic interest, quickly moved on to cover fundamental questions.
The question of whether there is such a thing as 'theory' in the study of literature and, if there is, whether it is at all objective (can one speak of meta-theory?), has been asked before, but is especially pertinent to those who study Asian literatures from the position of a scholar rooted in Western academic traditions. One of the speakers suggested that the main question should be: Do texts have an intrinsic value? Seen in that light, it would be a mistake to think that there is only one approach: interdisciplinarity is the answer. Yet, it is possible to suggest that literary texts are specific to a cultural grammar, which can be a large grammar of several cultures. Texts with intrinsic values function within the larger grammar; or, as someone suggested, might work in other grammars or even challenge the grammar (as opposed to be merely boring or not understood).
The age of devoted adherence to a single theoretical approach does indeed seem over. Critical frameworks presented at the workshop were as wide-ranging as the topics addressed: canon formation in Japanese literature, the writings of Lao She, the literary field in modern China and medieval Japan, Julia Kristeva and China, new historicism and Chinese literature, the 'native place' ideal in modern Japanese literature, the digitization of letter- and character-based systems of inscription, cultural and structural mechanics of classical Japanese literature, deconstruction and China, autobiography and notions of the novel in modern Japanese literature, readings of the Analects, and medieval Japanese poetic theories.
Apart from the organizers, participants included the two keynote speakers, Rey Chow (University of California, Irvine and Haruo Shirane (Columbia University), Reiko Abe Auestad (University of Oslo), Daria Berg (University of Durham), Hilary Chung (University of Auckland), John Cayley (independent scholar), Stephen Dodd (SOAS), Bernard Fuehrer (SOAS), Rein Raud (University of Helsinki), Haun Saussy (Stanford University), Michel Vieillard-Baron (University of Grenoble, Stendhal-3), and Henry Zhao (SOAS).
All this diversity nothwithstanding, the workshop generated gratifying surprise at finding that there were no real boundaries between what was initially perceived as a possible dichotomy: China and, rather than versus, Japan, and modern and, rather than versus, pre-modern. Plans are underway to publish the results of the workshop in a book. *
Dr Michel Hockx is lecturer at SOAS,
E-mail: mh17@soas.ac.uk
Dr Ivo Smits is lecturer at the Centre for Japanese and Korean Studies, Universiteit Leiden, E-mail: ibsmits@let.leidenuniv.nl